685 
,8955 





Glass 






SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES E. STUART 



OF MICHIGAN, 
DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE I NITED STATES. AUGUST e, 18of.. 



4T 



The Senate having under consideration the General Appropriation Bill for tin.- support Qif I 
of the Army, and having stricken out the following provisos attached to it Ijy the House 
of Representatives — 

[" Provided, nevertheless, That no part of the military force of the United Stales herein 
' provided for shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of the enactments of tin; alleged 
' legislative assembly of the Territory of Kansas, recently assembled at Shawnee Mis- 
« sion, until Congress shall have enacted either that it was or was'not a valid legislative 
' assembly, chosen, in conformity with the organic law, by the people of the said Tcrri- 

• tory ; Jlnd provided. That, until Congress shall have passed upon the validity of the said 
' legislative assembly of Kansas, it shall be the duty of the President to use the military 
' force in said Territory to preserve the peace, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, and 
" protect persons and property therein and upon the national highways, in the State of 
< Missouri or elsewhere, from unlawful seizures and searches. 

' Jnd be it further provided, That the President is required to disarm the preset organ- 
« ized militia of the Territory of Kansas, to recall the United States arms therein disvr'i 

• buted, and to prevent armed men from going into the said Territory to disturb the public 

• peace or to aid in the enforcement or resistance of real or pretended law."] 

And Mr. Seward-, of New York, having stated at length his determination to vot® 
against the bill for that reason, Mr. Stuart replied to him as follows : 

Mr. STUART. Mr. President, the Sen- 
ate has been in session something beyond 
eight hours, and has been most of the time 
considering the question whether a certain 
extraordinary amendment proposed to a gen- 
eral appropriation bill should stand as a part 
of that bill or be rejected. It was not my 
intention to have engaged in the discussion 
of this question at all, but the extraordinary 
speech of the Senator from New York, both 
in its principles and in its facts, as well as 
its arguments, is such as to require some re- 
futation at my hands. I regret that the late- 
ness of the hour^ as well as the condition of 
my own health, will necessarily compel me 
to more brevity than I should like to exercise 
in refuting his arguments. 

The honorable Senator, in my humble 
judgment, has made a studious effort to avoid 
the real question which has been before the 
Senate, and if we may apply to that Senator 
the doctrine of the common law, that a man 
is held to intend that which is the necessary 
result of his acts, he has made a speech of 
hours this day to endeavor to hold up the 
House of Representatives to a factious posi- 
tion which he fears they will not maintain. 
Sir, in the numerous laws of Kansas, not a 
single one has he enumerated which has been 
attempted to be enforced within that Terri- 
tory to the knowledge of that Senator or any 
other Senator present. 

The difTicnlty that exists in Kansas is a 
difficulty arising out of other and distinct 



causes. No man — I say it emphatically — 
no man in this Union is more eminently re- 
sponsible for those difficulties than the hon- 
orable Senator from New York. Sir, let us 
understand this question as men and as Sen- 
ators, and whatever the honorable Senator 
may suppose will be the effect of his speech, 
sent, as he says he has been sending others 
to Kansas and throughoutthc country, among 
those who do not fully understand the sub- 
ject, do not let us forget that here, where the 
history of these transactions is familiar, that 
speech does not represent the issue nor seek 
to do it. I had occasion the other day to re- 
fer to the organic law of Kansas, to which 
no man objects so far as its own language is 
concerned. I had occasion then to say that 
the difliculties in Kansas grew out of a per- 
version of that law. I said then that fana- 
tical men, North and South, were equally 
responsible for that perversion. I have oc- 
casion to say now that fanatical men, North 
and South, are seeking to inflame the diffi- 
culty. North and South that character of 
men demand the withdrawal of the army 
from Kansas. They both desire it. For 
what.' To bring about collisions, blood- 
shed, and murder. The great body of the 
American Senate — in my judgment, the great 
body of the American House of Representa- 
tives, I have no doubt the great body of the 
American people — are averse to any such 
result ; and yet 1 repeat tliat the rxfreme 
men. North and South, as the history of the 



H-c^ 



country show, desire collision and blood- 
shed upon the plains of Kansas, and hope 
to involve the States of the Union in it. 
Now, what is the effect of this amend- 
ment of the House of Representatives to 
this General Appropriation bill? One would 
suppose, from the argument submitted by the 
Senator from New York, that the Army of 
the United States was like a constable trav- 
ersing the Territory executing processes and 
the laws. No man knows better than the 
honorable Senator from New York that 
the Army of the United States cannot be 
used, and has not been used, but on the re- 
quisition of the Governor of the Territory. 
The Governor or the Legislature must de- 
mand its isterposition or it cannot be given. 
No man knows that better than the Senator 
from New York ; and I ask him now to 
point out the case und§r either section of the 
laws which he has read where the Army of 
the United States has been called upon to 
execute it. The fact does not exist, and 
yet we must sit here hours to hear a spe- 
cious argument made to aid the Hou^e of 
Representatives in maintaining its position 
upon this bill, and made also to inflame fur- 
ther the* public sentiment for purposes of 
political effect. 

I had occasion to say, the other day, and 
I beg briefly to repeat it here, that, whatever 
may be the illegality of the election in Kan- 
sas, in point of fact, no Senator will under- 
take to deny that the Executive and the ju- 
dicial ofBcers are bound to enforce those 
laws so often as the question arises. I defy 
any man, however learned, I defy him, how- 
ever bold, to show me the case in Christen- 
dom where any respectable judicial tribunal 
has not laid down this principle, and I defy 
even the learning, and intelligence, and in- 
genuity of the honorable Senator from 
New York to show me the respectable de- 
cision from a respectable court that author- 
izes either a judge or an executive oflBcer to 
go behind the law to ascertain the validity 
of its enactment. As often as that question 
has been presented to all respectable judi- 
cial tribunals such has been the judgment. 

Then what is to be done by the Governor 
and the judges of the Territory of Kansas ,' 
Here is a code of laws made by a Legisla- 
ture created under the forms of law, certi- 
fied by the Governor who had the whole 
power to do it, to have been correct and 
legal, and addressed by him as such. I had 
occasion to say the other day that this 
Governor Reeder, whom Republicans had 
so long sought to make a martyr, had been 
laid aside by them because they found his 
official acts sealed the question of the valid- 
ity of the Kansas Legislature and laws so far 
as Judges, Governors, and Presidents are to 
act. 

I said then, and I say now, that Congress 
has a right to go behind those laws to ascer 



tain their validity, and to provide a just 
remedy for them according to their own 
judgment by substituting others in their 
stead, or providing for. their substitution. Is 
It proposed, has the House of Representa- 
tives in this amendment proposed, a new or- 
ganization of that Territory, a new election, 
and thus placed the axe at the root of the 
evil ? Not at all ; but they have undertaken 
to say the Army shall not be used in en- 
forcing the laws of that Territory while the 
money appropriated by this bill is being ex- 
pended. 

Now, sir, as the honorable Senator said, 
this bill appropriates a little over $12,000,- 
000. There is a fact connected with the his- 
tory of this subject which should not be lost 
sight of. The appropriations for the last 
fiscal year were deficient. This Congress 
has been called upon to pass, and has passed, 
a deficiency bill to make up the amount of 
money necessary to keep the Army in the 
field up to the 30th of June last. There is 
not a dollar of money which can be appro- 
priated out of the Treasury of the United 
States since the 30th day of June last unless 
this bill shall become a law. 

Now, let us try the beautiful picture 
which the Senator has spread before the 
Senate and the country. There is an Indian 
war in Washington Territory- Men, wo- 
men, and children, have been butchered and 
scalped in that Territory. This process is 
going on to-day. Their cattle have been 
stolen, their houses have been burnt, every 
thing near and dear to man on earth ha» 
been threatened with the Indian hatchet, 
the rifle, and the tomahawk. And yet the 
Senator is willing that butchery shall go 
on in that Territory, that the President of 
the United States shall be deprived of the 
means of keeping the Army in the field 
rather than that any laws shall be executed 
in the Territory of Kansas. There is his 
beautiful picture plainly represented. This 
is done on the score of affected philanthropy 
by a man who is bleeding, if you are to be- 
lieve the Senator, at every pore, for the 
wrongs and sufferings which the people of 
the United States are undergoing in the Ter- 
ritory of Kansas. Aye, Mr. President, if 
the action of the Army and the Indians in 
the Territory of Washington was deemed as 
important as the action of these conflicting 
elements in the Territory of Kansas in the 
approaching elections you would find a 
change of the picture as well as a change in 
the landscape in which it is presented. 

I have stated in brief the position in which 
the President of the United States and the 
Congress of the United States stand, in the 
execution of the Kansas laws. I shall pass 
over the question of how far the species «{ 
legislation now proposed by the House of 
Representatives interferes with the plain 
duty of the President. That has been pre- 






■fA'smr^ 



-JUN 



sented to-day by others, and I shall not be 
able to present it myself. But let me call the 
attention of the Senate to the amendment 
itself, and see if it is possible to be executed 
in its own language and in its own spirit. 
After providing that the Army shall not be 
used in the enforcement of the enactments 
of the legislature, it provides that: 

"Until Congress shall have passed upon 
' the validity of the said legislative assem- 

• bly of Kansas, it shall be the duty of the 

• President to use the military force in said 

• Territory to preserve the peace, suppress 

• insurrections, repel invasion, and protect 

• persons and property therein, and upon the 
' national highways in the State of Missouri, 

• or elsewhere, from unlawful seizures and 
' searches." 

If my voice will hold out, I want to ask 
the honorable Senator from New York a 
practical question. Suppose the civil offi- 
cers of the Territory of Kansas are engaged 
in executing a law of that Territory. Sup- 
pose the advice of Senators on this floor be 
taken, and that the execution of those laws 
be resisted, and a resort is had to arms, 
the officers and their posse on the one side, 
and the people resisting on the other. What 
will the Senator call that? An insurrection? 
There is no other legal name to give it. 
Certain it is that such an occurrence would 
constitute a breach of the peace. This pro- 
viso says the President shall use the Army to 
suppress insurrections, preserve the peace, 
protect persons and property, &c Now, 
which side is he going to take in this prac- 
tical case — the side of the officers executing 
tBe laws, or the side of the people resisting 
the laws? How, then, is that proviso consis- 
tent with itself? How is the President to 
suppress insurrections, preserve the peace, 
protect persons and property, &c., unless he 
is permitted to enforce the laws of the Ter- 
ritory? The Constitution of the United 
States says he shall enforce the laws. The 
laws of the United States say when he is 
called on by the Governor or the Legisla- 
ture of a State or Territory to extend the 
military arm to enforce the laws, he shall 
do it. These laws stand on the statute book 
unrepealed. Here is a case of insurrection 
against the laws. The proviso of the House 
of Representatives to this bill says he shall 
suppress it. How is he to do it? Shoot 
down both sides? I apprehend the House of 
Representatives does not mean that. Take 
the side of the people against the officers, 
and shoot down the officers ? 1 apprehend not. 

It will, therefore, be seen that the Presi- 
dent cannot comply with the terms of the 
proviso, and " preserve the peace, suppress 
insurrections, and protect persons and prop- 
erty" in Kansas, otherwise than by the exe- 
cution of the laws of the Territory,- when 
called upon for that purpose by the proper 
authority. 



If the Senator from New York shall un- 
dertake to solve the difficulty, and make the 
proviso of the House of Representatives 
consistent with itself, 1 venture to say that 
he will find it the most difficult subject he 
ever undertook to handle in his life. It can- 
not be done. 

The Senator says that the House of Rep- 
resentatives, under the Constitution of the 
United States, has the sole power to origi- 
nate revenue bills, and, as a consequence, ap- 
propriation bills, &c; and, having this power, 
they have a right to provide how the money 
shall be expended. Now, I want to ask the 
honorable Senator what he, and I, and oth- 
ers, constituting the majority of the Senate, 
have been doing for two weeks, if we have 
not been passing appropriation bills for 
River and Harbor Improvements, which 
had their origin in the Senate. Did they 
not originate here? Yet we are told to- 
night by the honorable Senator that this 
species of bills cannot be originated in the 
Senate. Many of them were introduced by 
the honorable Senator himself. All of them 
came from a committee of which he and I 
are members. That fact alone sufficiently 
refutes that part of his argument. 

He further tells us, with equal consisten- 
cy, that the Senate of the United States is a 
mere advisory body, to advise with the Pre- 
sident on treaties and appointments. Why, 
sir, the provision of the Constitution is so 
plain that no man can misunderstand it 
that the Senate is as much a part of the 
Legislative Department as the House of 
Representatives. The powers conferred on 
the Senate to advise the President in regard 
to treaties and nominations made by the 
President are not legislative powers. They 
are powers in addition. But on every ques- 
tion except the right to originate revenue 
bills, and bills taxing the people, there is no 
distinction between the legislative powers 
of the Senate and the House of Representa- 
tives. Notwithstanding this, for the pur- 
pose of making a speech to suit this occa- 
sion, the Senator takes this unfounded posi- 
tion and contradicts it by his own action for 
the last two weeks. 

But, sir, inasmuch as it is nevei advisable 
to take a pebble to kill a whale, any more 
than it is to take a handspike to kill a fly, I 
propose to adapt the means to the end, and 
make the speech of the honorable Senator 
from New York, delivered in the last Con- 
gress, refute his speech of to-day. On the 
1st of March, 1855, some things were said 
in the Senate, by the Senator from Newr 
York, which I will read : 

"Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President, I re- 
' gard the proposition to Incorporate a new 
» tariff" system nito the civil and diplomatic 
' appropriation bill as one of a revolutionary 
' character. 1 believe that if we shall suf- 
' fer the House of Representatives thus to 



• attach a condition, and suc/t a condition, to 
' their assent to an appropriation bill to the 

• principal one of the appropriation bills, we 
' shall establish a precedent which can never 
, be revoked, and which will leave the Sen- 
' ate and the whole Government under the 
' coercive dictation of a majority of the 

• other branch of the Legislature I think 
' it belonged to the honorable gentleman — 

• the senior Senator from Delaware — to pro- 

• test against that measure, and to arouse 
' the attention of the Senate. It belonged 

• to him not only on account of his great ex- 
« perience here, but also because the Senate 
' is the body which is necessarily relied on 

• to save the rights of the States, especially 

• of the smaller States, in which class Dela- 

• ware belongs. I award to him, and also 

• to his colleague, [Mr. Bayard,] the tribute 
' of my thanks for the fidelity with which 
« they, in the name of their State, have sus- 
' tained the independence of the Senate in 
' this debate." 

The Senate was not merely an advisory 
body then. 

"Let me state the question. The House 
' of Representatives virtually say that if the 
« Senate will agree that certain modifica- 
« tions of the tarift' in regard to wool shall 

• be made for the benefit of the manufactu- 

• rer of that staple, and will also consent to 
« certain modifications of the tariff in regard 
' to iron, for the benefit of consumers of that 
' metal, chiefly railroad companies, then the 

• President and other executive oflcers of 
' the Government, civil, judicial, and diplo- 
' matic, may receive their salaries secured 

• to them by the Constitution and laws, and 
' the Senators and members of Congress 
' may also receive their legal compensation 

• for their services during the year." 

Now, the proposition applied to the pres- 
ent case, is that, if the Senate will agree 
to invade the power of the President of the 
United States in the execution of laws, the 
Army may be maintained, the peace of the 
country may be maintained, the country se- 
cured against invasion and insurrection. 

"But if the Senate will not consent to 

• those modifications, then no officer of the 
« Government, however high, no servant of 
' the people, however low, shall receive 
' any compensation whatever. Well, sir, as 
' this poor world of ours goes, even the la- 
' borer in spiritual things claims his 'hire ;' 

• much more reason is there to suppose that 
' if pariotB are denied their pay, the public 
' service must stop." 

Are there no pariots in the Army? Are 
they all in the Senate? 

"If the public service is ended, then the 
Government itself ceases." 

That is the doctrine. 

" This, sir, is the way in which they bring 
' about a change of Ministry in Great Bri- 
» tain. Jt is proposed to try the same pro- 



« cess in this country. 1 speak, sir, only for 
' myself; but I do not hesitate to declare 
' that I will, if need be, stand here protest- 
' ing against this innovation until Sunday 
' morning, the 4th of March next, shall 
♦ come in to relieve all of us of further du- 
' ties here." 

" Sir, there is great wisdom, there is Nes- 
' torian wisdom in the counsel of the honor- 
' able Senators from Delaware. It may be 
' that it is only now a question of relieving 
' woollen manufacturers and railroad build- 
' ers, but another House — 

I call your attention especially, Mr. Pre- 
sident, and that of members of the Senate 
to this, for the Senator was looking forward 
to a change of things: 

" And then the House of Representatives 
' may give us, in the same form, a question 
' of slavery or a question of freedom, and 
' may seek in the same way to coerce our 
' consent to their policy in that respect. Are 
' you prepared for that ? When the prece- 
' dent shall have once been established, what 
' will protect you against the most unbound- 
' ed license of assumption by the House of 
' Representatives?" 

To-night, the honorable Senator from New 
York, fearing that the license of the House 
of Representatives would not be sufficiently 
unbounded, has sought to raise their flag- 
ging spirits up to the mark of his political 
desires. 

"Again, sir, when you shall have suffered 
' the House of Representatives to incorpo- 
' rate a new tariff into the civil and diplo- 
' matic appropriation bill, what shall hinder 
' the same power from attaching the French 
' spoliation bill to the naval service bill? 
' Moreover, when the President of the Uni- 
' ted States shall hereafter veto any bill, a 
' majority of the two Houses, adopting the 
' precedent now to be established, can prac- 
' tically annul the veto by suspending his 
' ov/n compensation and arresting the wheels 
' of the Government." 

That was the doctrine of the honorable 
Senator from New York in the last Con- 
gress. That was the doctrine of my own 
heart at the time, and I voted for it. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. And I. 

Mr. STUART. The honorable Senator 
from Illinois says he did, and he will recol- 
lect that he moved a reconsideration of the 
first vote in order to establish it. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STUART. Sir, I never thought and 
never heard until! now, that the indepeu' 
dence of the Senate, as a legislative body, 
was to dwindle down into a mere advisory 
body for the President of the United States. 

But I have not read all that the Senator 
from New York said on this subject. It 
came up again, and the same honorable gen- 
tleman spoke again : 

" From the foundation of the Government, 



« until this day, it has been settled as a mat- 

• ter of habit, and become a habit of the 
« Government that the House of lleprcsen- 
« tatives shall not only exercise its constitu- 

• tional right of originating all revenue bills, 

• but that it shall exercise that original 
« right in a certain regular way ; that is, by 

• introducing bills of appropriation separate 

• and distinct from all other matters, and 
' confined to matters of appropriation alone. 

• It is a part of that great conservative prin- 

• ciple of legislation which is necessary for 
' the safe transaction of the public business 

• and for the preservation of the balance of 
' political affairs in any State, that every 
' act ef legislation should be distinct and 

• separate from all other acts ; and for the 
» obvious reason that, where many subjects 

• are combined, in regard to which Repre- 
' sentatives have different opinions repre- 
' senting different interests, there is no dis- 

• tinct and separate opportunity for each of 
' them ; but a compromise is made in which 
' one party gives up something to obtain an 
' advantage from the other party. This in 
' small matters passes without observation ; 
« but when the matters thus combined are 
' great questions of State, involving the 
« safety of the State, or involving the har- 

• mony of the Union, then we are all made 
' aware at once how important it is to ad- 
» here to the safe and cardinal principle of 
' discussing every separate matter by itself 
' independent of all others. 

" When 1 first came into the Senate I took 

• the ground that a combination of many 

• great measures affecting many great inter- 
' ests and engaging different and conflicting 
' opinions, was irregular, was factious, was 
'revolutionary; and upon that ground, 
' among othejs. I voted against the compro- 
' raise bill of 1850, though it contained an 

• object which I was most sedulous and anx- 
' ious to obtain — the admission of the State 

• of California. I insisted that California, 
' much as I desired her to come into the 
' Union — and all men know how anxious at 
' that time I was for the admission of the 
' State of California — must come in without 

• condition, without compromise, without 
' qualifications ; and because she was not 
' allowed to come in in that way by the 
' compromise bill I voted against it. 1 have 
' always been in favor of advancing the in- 

• terests of that State, and of adfnitting 
« States of the character of California ; but, 
« at the same time, I have never been wil- 

• ling to resort to a revolutionary or factious 
' measure to obtain an important object, 

• however beneficial it might be to the in- 
' terests of the Union, in my view, or to the 
' interests of the community. 

" Sir, this has been my rule of action from 

• the beginning. The honorable Senator 

• from South Carolina appeals to me how I 

• would act in a case which he imagines. 



• which may happen, and which may never 
« happen ; and that is, that, if there shall be 
' a House of Representatives tlie next year 
' — which I trust in God may be the case — 
' that will send here a bill to repeal the fu- 
' gitive slave law, then how will 1 vote on 
' that.' 

" Mr. BUTLER. That was not the ques- 
' tion which I propounded. 

" Mr. SEWARD. If the honorable Sena- 
' tor will wait I will state his question and 
' answer it. 

" Mr. BUTLER. Very well, sir. 

"Mr. SEWARD. When the House of 
' Representatives sends that bill here, it will 
' be the beginning of that reaction which, 

• when the fugitive slave law was passed, I 
' knew was to begin in the near future. 
' The question being stated in that simple 
' form, of course the honorable Senator 
' knows, and everybody here and thrwugh- 
' out the country, I trust, knows what my 
' answer would be. I have voted here more 
' than once for the repeal of the fugitive 
' slave law, and when the question comes, 
' this year, or the next year, or the year 
' after, or so long as I have a place in the 
' Senate, I shall always vote for it, when I 
' can vote for it constitutionally, and that 1 
' can always do when it comes here as a 
' separate bill." 

Mr. BUTLER. I recollect it. 

Mr. STUART. So do I. Let me continue. 

"Other honorable Senators ask what I 
' will do if the House of Representatives 
' shall next year send a bill for the restora- 
' tion of the Missouri compromise.' Sir, I 
' trust that that House of Representatives, 

• whether it be constituted of anti-Nebraska 
' men, or of American men, or whatever 
' may be its constitution will send up such 
« a bill here. 1 think the next House will 
' send it, or at any rate, the next one after 
' that; and when it shall come here, I will 
' be prepared to vote for expunging slavery 
' from every foot of the common territory of 
« the United States of America when I can 
' do that constitutionally ; and I can always 
« do it when it is in a separate bill. 

" Now, sir, having thus stated my faith as 
' to what I can do constitutionally and with- 
' out faction or revolution, I will tell the 
' honorable Senator from South Carolina — 

• and there are on this floor the witnesses 
' of what I say — that more than once since 
' the fugitive slave law was passed I have 
' warned my friends that they must not put 
' upon an appropriation bill, which involves 
' the payment of the expenses of Govern- 
' ment, a provision for the repeal of the fu- 
' gitive slave law, and that if they did they 
' would not have my vote. I can tell the 
' honorable Senator from South Carolina 
' that there are those here who will bear me 
' witness that when it has been proposed on 
' this bill I have refused to give it my support. 



«' Mr. FOOT. I am a witness. 
"Mr. SEWARD. Here is one Senator 
' who says he is a witness. That is for the 

• past. Now I will tell the honorable Sena- 
' tor for the future." 

1 want to see how the honorable Senator 
from New York's principles then conform 
to his practice now. 

"The Senate of the United States has 
' pursued, in advancing the interest of sla- 
' very, according to my judgment, a course 
' of faction and of revolution, which has 
' crushed the anti-slave power in this House. 
' It is weak here. I have remonstrated at 
' every step, and been at the same time, as I 
' think, loyal and orderly; but the Senate of 
' the United States can establish and will es- 
' tablish, with or without my remonstrance, 
« what is factious, whatis orderly, what is 
' regular, and what is revolutionary. If the 
' Senate of the United States now establish 
' the position that I am wrong in supposing 

• that it is faction and revolution thus to 

• compel a revision of the tariff without 

• rhyme and without reason ; without giving 
' men throughout all this broad land an op- 
' portunity to know that their interests are 

• brought into question, and without giving 
« us, their representatives here, an opportu- 
« nity to ascertain their case, then I shall be 
' overruled." 

Recollect you, sir, his action in the future 
was to depend on the precedents which 
should be set in that case. If the Senate 
overruled him and retained that tariff amend- 
ment he was for faction and revolution 
hereafter. If they sustained the honorable 
Senator and rejected it, he was for no fac- 
tion and no revolution. 

The Senate did reject it, and we have 
seen this night how the honorable Senator 
has redeemed his pledge. 

"Then I shall learn, by the consent of the 
' honorable Chairman of the Committee on 
« Finance, by the concurrence of the vener- 
' able and distinguished Senator from South 
' Carolina, by the support of the majority of 
' this House, by the concurrence of the 

• House of Representatives, and when the 
' President shall have signed their ill-starred 
' bill, by the concurrence and approval of 
' the President of the United States, that I 
' have been heretofore wrong, and that the 
' true way to abolish slavery in the Dis- 
' trict of Columbia is to attach it as a condi- 
' tion to the civil and diplomatic bill; that 

• the true way to restore freedom to the ter- 
' ritories is to attach it to the civil and di- 
' plomatic bill ; and that the true way to 

• repeal the fugitive slave law is to make 
« the repeal conditional on the grant of the 
« money with which the Government is to 

• maintain itself in all its domestic opera- 
« tions and in all its foreign relations. I 
» shall have learned, sir, that instruction. 
« How I shall profit by it, I do not now say. 



• I only say that when the time comes I will 
' consider. " 

Well, sir, that time has come and the 
Senator has considered, and I fear, sir, that, 
unfortunately for that honorable Senator's 
reputation, when the people of this country 
shall compare the Senator's speeches, they 
will " consider " and conclude that the sen- 
timents of the statesman and patriot per- 
vading the first speech, have all been ex- 
changed for those of the mere political par- 
tisan, which have so disfigured his speech of 
to-night. 

Mr. President, if ever man's argument 
was refuted by himself, that is the condition 
of the Senator from New York. There 
can be no distinction between the bills, be- 
cause the argument and doctrine are appli- 
cable to all general appropriation bills, 
and it must be known to the Senator that 
the House of Representatives have put 
similar conditions on the bill which involves 
their own pay and the pay of the civil 
authorities of the United States. There 
they stand. The Senate, acting in accord- 
ance with the views of the Senator from 
New York, rejected the amendment last 
year. I voted against ii with the majority. 
I voted against it for the reasons then given. 
It was out of place. The argument of the 
honorable Senator from New York was then 
unanswered, and is by his argument to-day 
unanswered, as it will ever be unanswer- 
able. 

I do not intend, sir, to detain the Senate 
at this late hour of the night, and the pres- 
ent condition of my voice forbids me doing 
what I would like to do in respect to the 
rest of the speech of the Senator from New 
York. From its commencement to its ter- 
mination, as I have told the Senate, it does 
not meet the issue. The question is pre- 
sented, will the Senate consent to invade 
the prerogative of the President of the Uni- 
ted States, or, if there be doubt about that, 
will they consent, as the honorable Senator 
himself proposes, to lose this bill and be- 
come borrowers of money in the market 
(that is his advice) to carry on the expenses 
of the Government, or pass this bill as it 
came from the House. If they do, let them 
look to the warnings of the Senator from 
New York. If you do allow your right, 
under the Constitution, to be invaded now, 
he tells you that to repeal the fugitive slave 
law and to abolish slavery in the District of 
Columbia, to abolish slavery in the Territo- 
ries, are the next issues to be presented 
upon general appropriation bills, and the 
wheels of Govornment are to stop — aye, sir, 
he tells you, in the speech from which I 
have read that the Government itself is to 
cease, if you permit this example. 

Sir, his speech to-night is the most unforj 
tunate speech of the Senator's life. His 
zeal to carry out the programme which he 



and others have laid down for the House of 
Repsesentatives in this political campaign 
has carried him beyond the Constitution, be- 
yond the safety of the Republic, beyond the 
protection of the people from the armed, 
vicious savage of the wilderness, beyond the 
existence of the Government itself. That 
is the question, and in the language of the 
Senator from New York, 1 am prepared to 
stand here until this Congress shall expire 
on the 4th of March next before I will con- 
sent to it. I take this ground. I took it in 
the last Congress. It is a ground that does 
not vary with the wind nor with the politi- 
cal campaigns of the day. When a man 
here swears to support the Constitution of 
the United States, with the intellect God 
has given him he must control his action in 
obedience to that oath. No considerations 
of policy, none of convenience, none of 
revolution and of faction, none but his ac- 
countability for his oath to the God that 
made him, can be the rule of his action. 
Come, therefore, sir, weal or wo, it shall find 
me, as I trust it will find the majority of this 
high body, under the Constitution, standing 
by it even to the end. 

Mr. President, I must be permitted to say 
that I regret in a two-fold point of view 
my inability to proceed with these views ; 



the patience of the Senate is exhausted, and 
so are my own voice and strength; butl trust 
I have shown that the laws, as they are deci- 
ded by the highest judicial tribunals of the 
country, are against the argument of the 
honorable Senator from New York. I trust 
1 have shown that the Constitution of the 
country stands in his path at every step. 

I trust I have shown, both upon principle 
and by the former speech of the Senator 
from New York, that the proviso attached 
to this bill by the House is not only incon- 
sistent with ttself, but is also unconstitu- 
tional, factious, and revolutionary. 

I trust that no such factious and revolu- 
tionary argument as that of the Senator now 
made in support of it can possibly meet the 
sanction of the majority of the Senate of the 
United States. Sir, reason will return when 
the emei'gency of the occasion sternly de- 
mands it, and the House of Representatives, 
reconsidering this question , will see the bold 
and dangerous step which they have taken 
against the Constitution of the country, and 
in the magnanimity of patriots they will re- 
cede, and they will de much more honored 
in that receding than they have been in the 
advancing step. Sir, I will detain tne Sen- 
ate no longer. 



IhAnvei ftt H. Polkinhom's Steam Book & Job Printiiic; Office, D sf, bet 6th & ?th its;, 

heat National Inlelligeiieai: Ofioe, Washinglbn) B. C< 



^ 



